Increased knowledge makes a difference! - general practitioners' experiences of pictorial information about subclinical atherosclerosis for primary prevention: an interview study from the VIPVIZA trial

Anna Bengtsson, Kristina Lindvall, Margareta Norberg, Eva Fhärm, Anna Bengtsson, Kristina Lindvall, Margareta Norberg, Eva Fhärm

Abstract

Objectives: To explore how pictorial information on subclinical atherosclerosis affects GPs' perception of patient cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, their communication with patients, and GPs' attitude to the treatment of CVD risk factors.

Design, setting and subjects: Fifteen individual interviews were conducted between March 2014 and December 2016, with GPs who had received pictorial information regarding their patients' subclinical atherosclerosis. The pictorial information was also received by the patients together with written information regarding atherosclerosis and CVD risk prior to the appointment with their GP. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results: Three categories were identified in the analysis. Increased knowledge makes a difference: When patients had more in-depth knowledge regarding atherosclerosis, the consultation became more patient-centered and moved towards shared decision making. This is real, not just a number: GPs described their risk assessment and the patient's risk perception as more accurate with pictorial information about subclinical atherosclerosis. How to deal with the result - A passive to active approach: Some GPs acted promptly on the pictorial information while others took no action.

Conclusion and implications: Pictorial information regarding patients' subclinical atherosclerosis affected GPs' assessment of CVD risk. The communication shifted towards shared decision-making although the GPs' attitude to the result and treatment of CVD risk factors varied. Informing patients about examination results, both in writing and pictures, prior to a consultation can facilitate shared decision making and enhance preventive measures.

Trial registration: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01849575.KEY POINTSProviding pictorial information about carotid ultrasound results and information regarding atherosclerosis to GPs and patients affects primary prevention:•Informing patients about examination results prior to a consultation can be useful in clinical practice to enhance preventive measures•GPs experienced that increased patient knowledge resulted in a more patient-centered consultation and improved shared decision-making•GPs described their risk assessment and patients' risk perception as more accurate with pictorial information about subclinical atherosclerosis.

Keywords: Cardiovascular disease; consultation process; family practice; pictorial information; qualitative research; risk.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Pictorial information based on ultrasound examination of the carotid arteries presented to GPs and their patients.

References

    1. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators . Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;385:117–171.
    1. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, et al. . Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364(9438):937–952.
    1. O’Donnell MJ, Xavier D, Liu L, et al. . Risk factors for ischaemic and intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke in 22 countries (the INTERSTROKE study): a case-control study. Lancet. 2010;376(9735):112–123.
    1. Lorenz MW, Polak JF, Kavousi M, et al. . Carotid intima-media thickness progression to predict cardiovascular events in the general population (the PROG-IMT collaborative project): a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2053–2062.
    1. Peters SA, den Ruijter HM, Bots ML, et al. . Improvements in risk stratification for the occurrence of cardiovascular disease by imaging subclinical atherosclerosis: a systematic review. Heart. 2012;98(3):177–184.
    1. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Gwyn R.. General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group study. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):749–752.
    1. Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, et al. . Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of health care consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:108.
    1. Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, et al. . What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):169–181.
    1. Vanoli D, Lindqvist P, Wiklund U, et al. . Fully automated on-screen carotid intima-media thickness measurement: a screening tool for subclinical atherosclerosis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41(6):333–339.
    1. Naslund U, Ng N, Lundgren A, et al. . Visualization of asymptomatic atherosclerotic disease for optimum cardiovascular prevention (VIPVIZA): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):133–142.
    1. Norberg M, Wall S, Boman K, et al. . The Vasterbotten Intervention Programme: background, design and implications. Glob Health Action. 2010;3
    1. Nambi V, Chambless L, Folsom AR, et al. . Carotid intima-media thickness and presence or absence of plaque improves prediction of coronary heart disease risk: the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(15):1600–1607.
    1. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. . European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2012;223(1):1–68.
    1. Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, et al. . 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(29):2315–2381.
    1. Graneheim UH, Lundman B.. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–112.
    1. Denissen SJ, van der Aalst CM, Vonder M, et al. . Impact of a cardiovascular disease risk screening result on preventive behaviour in asymptomatic participants of the ROBINSCA trial. Eur J Prev Cardiolog. 2019;26(12):1313–1322.
    1. Lonnberg L, Damberg M, Revenas A.. “It’s up to me”: the experience of patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease of lifestyle change. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38(3):340–351.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T.. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–692.
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T.. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–661.
    1. Bengtsson U, Kjellgren K, Hallberg I, et al. . Patient contributions during primary care consultations for hypertension after self-reporting via a mobile phone self-management support system. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(1):70–79.
    1. Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C.. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.
    1. Witte K, Allen M.. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(5):591–615.
    1. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
    1. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–748.
    1. Lubloy A. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:469.
    1. Jamoom EW, Patel V, Furukawa MF, et al. . EHR adopters vs. non-adopters: impacts of, barriers to, and federal initiatives for EHR adoption. Healthc (Amst)). 2014;2(1):33–39.
    1. Sicotte C, Taylor L, Tamblyn R.. Predicting the use of electronic prescribing among early adopters in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(7):e312–e321.
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav. 2002;27(6):989–993.
    1. Dahlgren LE. Qualitative methodology for international public health. Umeå (Sweden): Umeå University; 2007.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit